Obama Calls Mitt Romney a BSer? Now That’s Funny!

Now, it’s not funny in a ha-ha sense but funny in a
you-gotta-be-kidding-me sense of the word. Obama accusing Romney of
bunkum? Talk about the putz calling the kettle black.

Obama’s entire life and rise to power have been nothing more than a
Texas-sized stockyard of ripe and foul compost. This man makes
Machiavelli look lame. Hussein trades so heavily in BS that the Oxford
Dictionary has now included his last name as a synonym for bollocks. I
also hear OJ take notes when Obama speaks.

In addition, I’ve learned from reliable sources that a Las Vegas-based
energy company is at work now trying to convert Obama’s gaseous
rhetoric, his scat-laced hollow promises and his abysmal jobs record
into an alternative fuel source to light up the Strip.

Whatever you want to call it, BS can be defined as communications in
which reality and truthfulness aren’t nearly as vital as the ability to
manipulate the audience to get it to do whatever one wants done. And
here’s where Obama rocks with the tofu-brained masses.

BS is essentially all skewed, spun, knowingly dubious, carefully
framed, pretentious, misleading or vacuous statements. Now, “BS” does
not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication; with only basic
knowledge about a topic, BS is often used to make the audience believe
that one knows far more about the topic by feigning total certainty or
making probable predictions. It may also merely be “filler” or nonsense
that, by virtue of its style or wording, gives the impression that it
actually means something:

In popular explanations of philosophy, the word “bullsh*t” is used to
denote utterances and speech acts which do not add to the meaning of the
set of sentences uttered, but which are added purely to persuade
goobers of the validity or importance of other utterances.

The accuracy of the information is irrelevant whilst “bullsh*tting.”
Whether true or false, BS is the intention to distort the information or
to otherwise achieve a desirable outcome, making BS a close cousin to
rhetoric as Plato conceived it (paraphrased from Harry Frankfurt’s book,
On Bullsh*t).

Do you need a few examples of how Obama has piled it high, wide and
deep on Americans’ noggins? You do? Check out these smelly bullet points
from our innovative BSer-In-Chief from a recent email I received …
Obama’s the first President to:

- Apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
- Have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
- Go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday
evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
- Preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
- Have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
- Keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
- Repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan
(Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
- Violate the War Powers Act.
- Be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
- Defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
- Require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
- Spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.
- Abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
- Bypass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
- Order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of
illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal
convictions.
- Demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
- Terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
- Arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
- Threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak out on the reasons for their rate increases.
- Tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
- File lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
- Withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
- Fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
- Appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
- Golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office (100+ to date).
- Hide his medical, educational and travel records.
- Win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
- Go on multiple global “apology tours.”
- Take a 17-day vacation.

A juicy whopper missing from that list is how Obama loves the woman
voter and yet strangely voted “present” (read against) in ‘99 for a bill
that would protect sexual assault victims from having the details of
their cases revealed publicly.

And lastly—and most ghastly—regarding how Obama has lied what’s left of his backside off to we the people comes the Benghazi massacre, which keeps growing grosser, more malevolent and insidious with each passing day.

For Barack to say Romney is a bullsh*tter in light of Obama’s own weapons-grade bullsh*t is, well … bullsh*t.

Is the foe religious or political?

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Recently the Wall Street
Journal published an analysis of Obama's foreign policy failures that,
aside from a few nods in the direction of the reigning politically
correct fictions about the relationship of the jihad doctrine to Islam
itself, was surprisingly clear-sighted: "Feith and Cropsey: A Foreign
Policy Failure to Acknowledge the Obvious," by Douglas J. Feith and Seth
Cropsey in the Wall Street Journal, October 18:

...But there's a bigger problem here than cynicism. It is
that the administration's first response—to blame an American video, not
Islamist terrorists—reflected strategic misjudgments. First is the
refusal to accept that the terrorism threat is part of a larger problem
of Islamist extremism. And second is the belief that terrorism is
spawned not by religious fanaticism but by grievances about social,
economic and other problems for which America bears fault.

When Mr. Obama became president, he was intent on repudiating the
previous administration's war on terrorism, which saw al Qaeda as part
of a diverse international movement of Islamist extremists hostile to
the United States, to liberal democratic principles (in particular the
rights of women), and to most governments of predominantly Muslim
countries.

Mr. Obama chose to define America's enemy not ideologically but
organizationally, as al Qaeda and its affiliates. White House
counterterrorism chief John Brennan, in his speeches over the past few
years, has insisted that terrorists should never be described as Muslim
because their extremism is not consistent with Islam. Mr. Brennan
discourses on Islam as if he were an imam.

The Obama administration, he
said in 2010, does not "describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists
because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to
purify oneself or one's community." He failed to mention that jihad also
means holy war.

It is clear that not all Muslims embrace extremist Islamist
ideology—perhaps only a small minority do. But the extremists claim to
speak for the true Islam. Their pretensions are disputable, but it is
false and presumptuous for Mr. Brennan, an American and non-Muslim, to
assert that the extremists cannot be Islamic or religious leaders.

The problem with ignoring ideology is made clear—unintentionally—in
President Obama's National Counter-Terrorism Strategy, released in June
2011. In it he writes: "We are at war with a specific
organization—al-Qa'ida." But America also has to work aggressively
against Hezbollah, he notes a few pages later—and against a number of
terrorist groups in South Asia, he further adds, "even if we achieve the
ultimate defeat of al-Qa'ida in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater."

So our problem is substantially broader than al Qaeda—and even
broader than al Qaeda and its affiliates. What all these groups have in
common is Islamist ideology—yet Mr. Obama ignores that.

And what, according to the Obama administration, stokes the fires of
extremism? It isn't the supremacist exhortations of Islamist ideology.
Rather, it is longstanding political and economic "grievances,"
according to Mr. Brennan, such as "when young people have no hope for a
job," "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of the
people," and when the Palestinian-Israeli conflict remains unresolved.
President Obama, Mr. Brennan has said, thinks America should be
"addressing the political, economic and social forces that can make
people fall victim to the cancer of violent extremism." Mr. Brennan has
also noted that the president is "concerned with how the United States
was viewed in the world and how these attitudes were fueling the flames
of hatred and violence."

Thus the way to defeat the terrorists, according to President Obama,
isn't to counter extremist Islamist ideology but to focus on how the
United States, through its actions and delinquencies—its supposed
excessive support for Israel, for example, and failure to provide more
economic aid—is to blame for the hatred that spawns terrorism.

White House senior director for the National Security Council
Samantha Power wrote some years ago, while a Harvard University
lecturer, that America should adopt a foreign-policy "doctrine of mea
culpa." This is the frame of mind that President Obama brought to his
famous June 2009 Cairo speech in which he suggested that tensions
between America and the world's Muslims are largely America's fault. It
was in that speech that President Obama asserted: "Islam is not part of
the problem in combating violent extremism."...

This was generally a fine analysis, and good to see in the normally
dhimmi WSJ, but my friend and colleague Andy McCarthy sees a problem
with it in "The Real Foreign-Policy Failure: A response to Doug Feith
and Seth Cropsey" in National Review, October 27:

Let’s start with the authors’ intimation that “religious
fanaticism” causes terrorism. To be sure, that’s a better explanation
than the Left’s “blame America first” approach. Yet, it still misses the
mark. The real cause is ideology, not religion. The
distinction is worth drawing because, for the most part, Islamist terror
is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam’s religious
tenets — for instance, “the oneness of Allah.” We Westerners recognize
such beliefs as belonging to the realm of religion or spirituality. To
the contrary, Islamist terror is driven by the supremacism and
totalitarianism of Middle Eastern Islam — i.e., by the perception of
believers that they are under a divine injunction to impose all of Islam’s tenets.

Most of those tenets do not concern religion or spirituality, at
least not as Westerners interpret those concepts. Instead, sharia is
largely concerned with controlling what we see as secular affairs —
political, social, military, financial, jurisprudential, penal, even
hygienic matters. Of course, the fact that we separate church and state
in the West does not mean our moral sense is without influence — indeed,
profound influence — over how we conduct secular affairs. But in the
West, we reject the notion that any religious belief system’s tenets
should control those affairs. In the United States, we reject the
establishment of a state religion — such official primacy would
suffocate freedom of conscience, a bedrock of liberty.

By contrast, the foundation of Middle Eastern Islam is submission to
Allah’s law, not individual liberty. This interpretation of Islam thus
rejects a division between the secular and the spiritual. Its sharia
system contemplates totalitarian control. That makes Islamist ideology
(i.e., Islamic supremacism, or what is sometimes more elliptically
called “political Islam”) just another totalitarian ideology, albeit one
that happens to have a religious veneer.

Some of my friends make the error of claiming that “Islam is not a
religion.” I understand what they mean — it is a clumsy way of making
the point that mainstream Islam aspires to control much more than
spiritual life. Still, the clumsy rhetoric is a bad mistake, driving a
wedge between what should be natural allies: those fearful of Islamic
supremacism and religious believers. The latter — for example, American
Christians, Jews, and non-Islamist Muslims — today find their core
liberties under siege by government overreach and atheist hostility. How
convenient for these aggressor forces if, by the hocus-pocus of denying
an established creed the status of religion, its adherents may be
stripped of their constitutional protections.

No, Islam clearly is a religion, and its theological tenets are every
bit as deserving of the First Amendment’s guarantees as any other. But
Muslims must accept that, in America and the West, it is not Islam but our traditions — especially the separation of church and state — that set the parameters of religious liberty. This way, Islam, the religion, is protected, but Islamic supremacism, the totalitarian ideology,
is not. The latter undeniably draws on Islamic scripture, but it is
categorically akin to Communism or National Socialism, not to religious
creeds.

This is true as far as it goes: a distinction does indeed need to be
made in American law between Islam as a religion and Islam as a
political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, and at variance
with our Constitutional principles and freedoms in numerous ways. But it
is off the mark to say that "the real cause is ideology, not religion," and that "Islamist terror is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam’s religious
tenets — for instance, 'the oneness of Allah.'" A moment's glance at
the names of jihad terror groups around the world shows that it is
precisely zealousness for Islam's religious tenets that fuels jihad
terrorism.

Aside from Tawheed itself, the names of jihad groups are invariably
religious: Hamas is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement.
Hizballah is the Party of Allah. The group that murdered Ambassador
Stevens and the others in Libya was Ansar al-Sharia -- supporters of
Islamic law. And on and on.

The key that McCarthy misses here is that the distinction between the
religious and political realms is a Western realm that has no
foundation in traditional Islam. These groups are fighting for political
and religious goals simultaneously, and see no difference, much less
opposition, between the two. In fact, Islamic apologists have frequently
criticized the Judeo-Christian West precisely for drawing such a
distinction. This doesn't mean that he is wrong in saying that we have
to combat the political and supremacist aspects of Islam as such, but
one principal reason why the problem of identifying our foe properly has
proven to be so intractable is that the religious and the political in
Islam are completely intertwined and not separable in any organic way
found within Islam itself. This, too, has to recognized before there can
be any real progress made in public policy on this issue.

Obama will lose...

By: Diane Sori

Anyone
who knows me knows that I've been saying since day one that Barack
HUSSEIN Obama will LOSE this election, and with about a week to go,
that's seems the most probable scenario as all the recent polls show
Obama is continuing his descent into becoming a one-term president.All the major nationwide polls have Romney at 50% or more for over a
week now, and for a sitting president NOT to be able to get above 46%
bodes very poorly for his re-election hopes.

Remember when Obama once had Florida and Virginia all locked up...NOT any more as
those states have turned RED, and all pollsters agree that Romney will
win those states. Colorado now is turning RED also.

Even the one solid BLUE state of Wisconsin looks like it will go to
Romney as Rasmussen's newest poll has Obama and Romney tied in
Wisconsin, 49% to 49%. This means Romney will most likely win Wisconsin
because every legitimate pollster knows that if an undecided voter
hasn't decided for Obama yet, history shows that this voter will most
probably vote for the challenger.

Even once solid BLUE states like Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania will most likely follow Wisconsin in the end as Obama's job approval ratings just dropped 7 points in the past few days alone.

Obama's people continue to say this will be a close race and that Obama
will win in the end, but I stand by my original gut feeling that Mitt
Romney will win in a landslide as did Reagan in 1980...after all
Benghazi is proving to be Obama's Jimmy Carter moment.

But we
know Obama will do every and anything to stop Mitt Romney from winning,
and as the time for an October surprise runs out, Obama could be
planning a November surprise for Romney next week. I put NOTHING past
that snake...NOTHING.

And that's why it's imperative that we all work to get out the vote!

This is the last chance we have to save our beloved America...please
guys help in anyway you can to get that vote out, and work as hard as
you can like our country's survival depended on it...because IT DOES!

Experts: Iran sanctions just won't work

Other nations targeting currency and creating crisis for nation's money

WASHINGTON – Experts say they don’t believe the latest round of
sanctions against Iran – imposed with the goal of convincing Iranian
officials to halt their nuclear program and hitting hard at the nation’s
currency, the rial – will work, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The recent currency decline due to sanctions was just the latest
punch from Western interests, but even that isn’t assessed to be a
knockout punch.
The West, led by the United States, has sought sanctions through the
United Nations and implemented unilateral restrictions against Iran over
its nuclear development program. The West is concerned Iran’s efforts
are intended to make nuclear weapons, something which Tehran vehemently
denies.

The intent is for sanctions to dissuade Tehran from pursuing its
nuclear program altogether, even though the Islamic republic has a right
as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to enrich
uranium.

However, Iran has offered to restrict uranium enrichment with
guarantees of outside supply for its nuclear reactors and medical
research, in exchange for lifting of the Western sanctions. But the
lifting of those sanctions must occur prior to Iran fulfilling its end
of the bargain.

Nothing has come of that proposal, either.

In recent days, however, there have been reports that Iran and the
U.S. would hold bilateral discussions on the future of Iran’s nuclear
program before the military option is put forward.

However, Iran and even the White House denied that such discussions
would take place, although Tehran later said that it would continue
discussions with the so-called P5+1 countries after the U.S. elections.

The P5+1 countries are the permanent members of the United Nations
Security Council – the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China, plus
Germany.

In denying published reports that Washington and Tehran had agreed to
hold direct meetings in November, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar
Salehi clarified by saying that the meeting would be with the P5+1
countries.

“Yet, if by negotiations you mean the talks between Iran and the
Group five plus one, these negotiations are under way now and according
to the latest talks, these negotiations will be held in November or late
in November,” Salehi said.

Israel, meantime, is losing patience, and has threatened military
action against Iran’s nuclear facilities if diplomacy and sanctions
fail, something which the Israeli leadership already has determined to
be the case.

At the same time, Tel Aviv has indicated that it is willing to give
the sanctions more time to work, but a military attack on the nuclear
facilities is quickly beginning to appear to be increasingly difficult
due. It’s because Israeli officials say Iran is fast approaching a “zone
of immunity” in which a conventional military attack may not be
effective.

The latest sanctions have devalued Iran’s currency by 75 percent,
spurring some demonstrations in Tehran.

However, the leadership appears
to remain in firm control, despite claims that the government has
mismanaged Iran’s oil revenues.

Because the rial has a limited official and unofficial value, the
unofficial value allowed for black market purchases until the most
recent fall to its actual value. Now, the devaluation of the rial is
affecting Iranians’ ability to purchase even the bare necessities of
food and is wiping out any savings. Iran remains plagued by high
unemployment, estimated to be more than a third of the working
population.

Analysts believe that Iran has no intention of halting its program
and don’t see the Iranian leadership being serious about making a deal
to end the sanctions, despite the currency devaluation.

Instead, they said, Iran will seek to find loopholes in bypassing
sanctions, reflagging its oil tankers to hide their true ownership and
destinations and relying on China to continue buying Iranian oil.

The Patriot Factor

I’m an American Patriot who refuses to let our beloved country be changed into something unrecognizable to us by a man who wants to radically change and destroy our America and take away our children’s future. We patriots ARE the grassroots movement and we bloggers must spread the truth about the corrupt and traitorous Obama regime and his sanctioned islamization of America before it’s too late.
I'm also co-host with Craig Andresen of RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR Worldwide Media and co-head of CPR's Journalism Department again with Craig Andresen.